iS5 






Glass F' ^S^" - 
Book 7^^4 ^ 



AFFAIRS ly KANSAS TERRITORY. 



SPEECH 



Em. LTMAAT TEUilBULL, Of ILLINOIS 



DELIVEREI) 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 14, ISSa 



, j.^^^jj 



^n the 



I the motion to print thirty-one thousand extra copies of the Reports 
ojthe Majority and Minority of the Committee on territories in 
rtjerence to Affairs in Kansas. 



V/ASHINGTON, D. C. 
BUELL & BLANCHARD, PRINTERS. 

1856. 



Fqfs- 



/. f/C -2- 



-AFFA^II^S IN KJ^Z^S^A^s, 



Ik Sexate, Fuiday, JJarch 14, 1S56. 
Mr. JOHXSOX. Mr Precidp,,, i „ n 

: copies or u.e,„::.ji;r^-;. ^--- ;j-a- 
^:,i ''>--"„ ^~ <■-"' o-'io. [Mr. pj„./: „";; 



I In Ibe remarks which I have to make, I Lavo 
no idea of pulling myself, or the State which I 
have the honor in part to represent, in the posi- 
tion of defending any such doctrines as the ma- 
jority report seeks, by anjument rather than by 
direct assertion, to attribute to those who differ 
from Its conchisions. 

I do not intend to justify interference in the 



«i213. The Con.mit.ee ou Pr.„ih,./," ".''■''' ^^ \ ■ t '^'^ ''°* '"*^"*^ to justify interference in the 

.oreponi„ravororpnntu/h .;.n: """T^"^' me internal affairs of Kansas by the people of ; nv 

'hou.a„dwouldgiveon.,,,ousuK ope MO ".^^ '"'"■° f •''' ""^ '^' Kansas-Nebraska act I do not 
b.u we „av. iho.„u „„u i.ve i J ^rd wol ^e , 'ZT^V' f ''^'° '" J"'^^"^' ^'^^'"^^ insurrection or treason n 
I';- Jor.heSe.a.e to iudge, however AVe .Ir ! ' ?^: ''"''''''" ' ""^' '^''' ^ ^^ ^^ frifrbtened from a 

«r pruuin. thir.y-one thousand of tho<e .wo reoon 7"" \ ^""^"f «*' ^^'^■'^t I believe to be the true conJi- 

J. 0,..i„ee on Te.il„.e. ,h. c:;^>;^,:r;;; Jr P t^^^ 

Tho PRESFDENT. Thcqucstitp 
Mift report of the ccinmiiice 

llr. TJIUMBULL said: ^Fr. President, I can 

ttat'thJ'rp'' 'fr'T'''^ '^'' '-'''''' -hich I hold, 
t4>at thi. report .shail go before the country withon 



on conciirri))-; 



Pipressing my dissent. 



_ where none exist. While onnoscfl 
to insurrectionists and traitors, 1 am e, u;illv 
opposed to tyrants and usurj^ers ; and wotlld be 
as ready to assist in putting down the one as the 
otner. 

I deny, sir, that there is occasion to sneak of 
any of the inhabitants of Kansas as traitors to 



. -. ^ .. ■-■-- I ain aware sir ilint ;t I n '■ /-- '" "' jvt.ujina «,s 

;;;f":;x ;;:;-,"4[--' --€ i ^B^": '"" """ ""■" "™ ^™' 

hanng been prepared without an opportunity o keen ,n'''"''\r'^ ^ "'"'""' ^' ^^^ important to 
rxainine the majority report, it wf^impo .![b ^ ^ Ter .^, XT r.' '"'"'^r ?.''""'^ -State and 
t^ It could meet and expose all its un bunded renr^ T ^^°V-''T'"^- ^^^"^'^ ^^ '^'^ ii the 
umpt.ons. Had the two reports gone o"u to- fT'r '7 ">' "^ '^- ^°J"'''^''= "^ ''''' «^'^'« i"ter- 
' '•-- - - ^ "^ ^"^ ' *^""'-' '° the domestic affairs of another-much 



_ :y on any of the States. \s there an 
in this land who ever thought tliat the citi 



^ Of the majority ii;;x:d; s^Ji S :X! 
t:^^^' ^r:::!':^"' """-■°-p--'i ".>• that'of the i mi:!":' 



Ler nun V 7 !'v,''"'^. ^"'' ■•'Pl''^^'-<-''i i" a news- 
„M S! ''?^'^V" ^t ^"^ "f" -^^<^^v- ^>"-k before it 



xens of one State had a right to rnterfe;e with th'; 
domestic institutions of any other Sf,ifP r,. ■ 

^:ced, inasmuch as, losing thi.s onportunif wV Tii ■ "''''^- ^'^^^ P'^op'e of the State of 

Ut.tution; and when Uiej condemned the dop";!;"-" 



urc from the measures of 1850 by the repeal of 
the Missouri Compromise, and the opcnmg afresh 
of this ihingerous Shvvery question— which, to use 
the kmeuufre of the distinguished Senator trom 
Michi--au, [Mr. Cass.] is the only question " which 
can ever put to hazarS our Union and safety — 
they had not the remotest idea of interfenno: with 
the domestic institutions of the States. Why I 
ask is it eternally thrust in the faces of those who 
oppose the extension of Slavery into free ternlonj, 
tv-lt they want to produce an inequality among 
the States ? Whether Slavery shall be permitted 
to extend into Territories belonging to the United 
States from which it was excluded by acts ot 
Confrre^s for more than a generation, is quite 
.inotlier thing from going ii,ito the States, and in- 
terferino- with the institution there. Persons who 
were opl^osed to the repeal of the Missouri Com- 
promise and who are now opposed to the spread 
of Slavery to the Territory it ma le free, are not 
Abolitionists, though they may be falsely so ealled. 
The expression " abolitionize " appears in this 
report, is sometimes used in this Chamber, as also 
the epithet " Black Republican ; " but I trust that 
neither Senators hor the people .are to be dnren 
from a just consideration of public measures by 
the fear of incurring some opprobrious epithet, 
applied to them by those who have no other argu- 
ment to offer. The veriest simpleton m your 
streets may cry out " Black Republican" or " Ab- 
olitionist." I do not design applying offensive 
names to the people of any part of this country, 
nor is it my intention to say anything offensive 
to any gentleman upon this fioor, or to advocate 
any other doctrines than those which have been 
handed down to us by the Democratic fathers of 
the Republic. My position on the subject ot 
Slavery is the one occupied by all parties, but a 
Tcry few years ago — by men in the South as well 
as in the North. 

Having said thus much, I propose to refer to 
some portions of this report. And the first prop- 
position to which I desire to call attention is the 
argument to show that the power of Congress to 
regulate the Territories of the United States is 
derived from that clause in the Constitution which 
authorizes the admission of new States into the 
Union. I think it is not very material whence 
the power of Congress to regulate the Territories 
is derived ; it is enough that it exists ; but in 
bunting for that power, it occurs to me that one 
of the last causes from which it can be properly 
deduced is that from which the committee seek 
to derive it. The power " to admit new States " 
into the Union gives to Congress, says this report, 
the power to govern Territories ! Why, sir, the 
very action recommended by the committee con- 
tradicts the assumption. The report concludes 
with the statement that a bill is to be introduced 
to authorize the people of the Territory of Kansas, 
when its population shall have attained a certain 
number, to form a State Government, preparatory 
to admission into the Union. The power to pass 
fiuch an act may be derived, perhaps, from the 
clause in the Constitution of the United States 
ivhich authorizes the admission of new States ; 
and the very fact that a new law is necessary 
siuce the act' was passed organizing the Territory 



of Kansas, in order to admit it into the Union, 
shows that the first act was not passed with that 
view. The first act docs not provide for the ad- 
mission of Kansas as a State ; and yet we are 
gravely told in this document, that the only power 
which the Congress of the United States has to 
form a Territorial Government is that which is 
dcrivcd.from the power to admit a new State ! 

I have no difficulty, myself, in finding the 
power in that other clause of the Constitution 
which declares that '• Congress shall have power 
< to make till needful rules and regulations respect- 
' ing the territory or other property belonging to 
' the United Stales." I see no propriety in limit- 
ing the word "territory" merely to land. The 
men who framed our Constitution understood the 
English language. They would not have used 
more words ^than were necessary to express the 
idea they had in view. If the design was simply 
to allow Congress under that provision to make 
needful rules and regulations respecting the prop- 
erty of the United States, why say "the terri- 
tory or other property ? " It would have been 
sufficient to have said, simply, •' they shall have 
' authority to make all needful rules and regula- 
' tions respecting 'the property belonging to the 
' United States." But, sir, they did not stop there. 
They said respecting " the territory " as well as 
the " other" property, and it should be borne m 
mind thdt the framers of the Constitution were 
laying the foundations for a political Government. 
The great object in view was to prepare a Con- 
stitution for the government of persons, not 
merely to regulate the sale of lands. At that;; 
verr time there was belonging to ^he United 
States the Northwestern Territory, and provisioni 
had then been made for its government. Somei 
of the very men in the Convention v/hich formed 
the Constitution had co-operated in passing thei 
Ordinance of 1787 respecting that Territory, and 
they doubtless incorporated this clause in tho 
Coutitution with the very intention of continuing 
the power to govern it. 

In view of these facts, is it reasonable to sup- 
pose thatthev intended the word " territory" m 
that limited" sense which the committee have 
thought proper to give it? 

Sir there are other clauses in the Constitution 
of the United States from which this power might 
be derived. There is the treaty-making power. 
Can it be said that this great Government was 
formed with authority to declare war and make 
peace and yet was left without the power to pro- 
vide a temporary Government for the countries i^ 
might, at any time, by the chances of war.cou- 
quer and possess ? We should not be an indc- 
pendent nation if we had not this power to ac 
quire territory by the force of arms, and, whoi 
we obtained it, to protect and govern its inhabit 
ants until thev should become sufficiently numer 
-us to form a" State Government for themselves. 
" But, sir, I will not dwell on this. The powo 
is admitted, but it is admitted to a very limiU' 
extent. ■ Here I wish to point out one of the in 
consistencies of the report. It says : 

'• So far as the organization of a Territory ma 
' be necessary and proper as a means of carryiu 
' into effect the provision of the Constitution U 



II 



' the admission of new States, and when exercised 
' witli reference only to that end, the power of 
' Congress is clear and explicit ; but beyond that 
point the authority cannot extend.'' 
The proposition is here broadly laid down, that 
beyond the point of providino- the means of carry- 
ing into effect the provision for the admission of 
new States, the power to govern the Territories 
does not exist. Is that true ? Can it be main- 
tained ? Is It one of the necessary means, in order 
to admit a Territory into the Union as a State 
that Congress should govern it before it comes' 
in . Is the exercise of the power conferred by 
the Kansas-Nebraska act necessary for the ad- 
nission of those Territories as States into the 
.nion? Whatis that act? A long law, contain- 
ng tinrty-seren sections, and providing for those 
territories Governors and Legislatures, judges 
nd marshals ; defining the jurisdiction of justices 
't the peace, and providing all the machinery for 
he lerritorial Governments. I desire to know 
•hat the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace or 
ny of these provisions, have to do with the ad- 
ussion of Kansas into the Union as a State? 



latitude, and not to the States to be formed out of 
It. I have not the provision before me, but I 
know that it provides, substantially, that " in all 
that territory" north of 30° 30^ Slavery shall be 
forever prohibited. The word " forever " occurs 
in It ; and that M-ord seems to be very potent 
in the estimation of some gentlemen ; but, like 
the word "hereafter," or any other word used in 
a law in reference to a Territory, it ceases to have 
etect whenever the Territory ceases to exist. 
After the Territory is admitted into the Union as 
a State, the laws providing for its government 
while a Territory become nugatory, unless some 
provision be made for their continuance. 

It is conceded by all, that any of the old Stages 
may abolish or establish Slavery at pleasure ; and, 
as a ncAv State is admitted into the Union on an 
equal footing with the original States, it has, when 
admitted, the same right, whether there had been 
an inhibition against Slavery while it was a Ter- 
ritory or not. The Missouri Compromise would 
therefore have an end as fast as the Territory 
north of 36° 30^ was formed into States and ad- 
mitted into the Union. The provision ai>plie3 






ongress should declare that a Territorial justice 
the peace should not have jurisdiction in ca>-es 

xeeding .'?100, or relating to real estate? If 

e assumptions of this report are correct, such 
the case; for we are told that it is only when 

e power of Congress is exercised in reference 
the admission of a new State, that it has any 



luent the equality of the States, as if somebody 
doubted it, and to assimilate States to Territories 
is only calculated to confwse the mind. It is de- 
sirable that the people of the South should un- 
derstand that there is no disposition in the North 
to interfere with the riglUs of the people in any 
State of this Union in reference to Slavery. They 



;ht to leo-islate for -i Tprritnrv- o.r/f ^ , °^ ^^'^ •- "^'^" ^'^ reference to Slavery. They 

t is not constitutional ^^'^"-'^-^ •^bra.i.a erable number of persons entertaining such a sen- 

Again, it is said ■ ' 5""^"* ' '°'' ^ ^^'"'"^ °"t of my remarks that little 



ie_ leiruones of Kansas and Nebraska was 
esigned to conform to the spirit and letter of 
le i'cderal Constitution, by preserving and 
laintainmg the fundamental principle of equal- 
y among all the States of the Union, notwith- 
■andmg the restriction contained in the eighth 
■ction of the act of the 6th of March 18''0 
■eparatory to the admission of Missouri into' 
le Lnion." 

would like to know from the committee ^\'>hat 
ler heaven the organization of a Territorial 
■erniuent m Kansas has to do with equality 
>ng all the States ? What has it to do wiih 
equality of right between New York and Ohio 
«ois and Georgia? Still, that is the object 
en IS avowed, to preserve equality among the 



Union of the States, who bear no considerable 
proportion to the people of this Union, North or 
South, and with whose disorganizing schemes the 
great mass of those who are to-day opposing the 
spread of Slavery have no more sym'pathv than 
the slaveholders themselves. 

Mr. TOUCEY. Will the Senator allow n>e to 
ask him a question for information? 
Mr. TRUMBULL. Certainly. 
Mr TOUCEY. I wish to ask the Senator 
whether, in his opinion, a restriction of that kind 
can De imposed on a new State, as a condition of 
admission into the Union ? 

Mr. TRUMBULL. I shall be very happy to 
answer the Senator. The propriety of admitting- 
a btate into the Union is to be determined wheS 



es, and that " notwithstand ^c^ he re t luction thT^uZ T "^"'"r '' '" ^' determined wheS 
stained in the eighth section of the a "m^^' l!^^'^.'^!^''^^'''^'^'- f- ^.''---on. It is 



itained in the eighth section of the act of the 
' ot March, 1820, preparatory to theadmission 
-Missouri into the Union, which assumed to 
ij to the people forever the right to settle the 
-^stion of Slavery for themselves, provided they 

•H r.f'^-^i'L,*'''^'' ,^°'"'' ^"^^ ^'•^''^"■'^e States 
th of 30° 30/ north latitude." Did the eighth 
on of the act preparatory to the admission of 
3un into the Union assume what is here 



not an absolute right. Congress is not bound to 
admit into the Union every new State which pre- 
sents a republican Constitution, whether toleratin.r 
Slavery or containing a provision prohibiting it! 
It IS a matter to be decided under the circum- 
s ances existing at the time; and if ever an ap- 
plication shall be made, while I have the honor to 
hold a seat here, either by a State presenting a 



plurality wife STSteni, and oilier obnoxious pro- 
visions in her Constitution, tending in ray judg- 
ment to sap the foundations of our institutions if 
admitted to an equal heritage with us, should ask 
admission, Congress would have the right, as 1 
conceive, to refuse it until the obnoxious provis- 
ions were stricken out. 

In advocating these views, I am committing no- 
body but myself, for I am not speaking for any 
political organization in the country. I would 
not undertake to speak for Senators on the oppo- 
site side of this Chamber, although from child- 
hood up I have always maintained, to the extent 
of my ability. Democratic principles, and sus- 
tained Democratic men. I have done so on prin- 
ciple, believing the policy of the Democratic 
party best for the interests of the country. I 
never was one of those, however, who supported 
a measure without examination, merely because 
it was i)roposed by political friends ; or con- 
demned it without investigation, simply because 
it came from a political opponent. Raving, my- 
self, been united with none of the new parties 
of the day, whether they be called Republican or 
American, or by any other name — having been 
associated with no political organization in my 
life, public or private, except the Democratic 
party, it will not be understood that, in the views 
which I advance, 1 profess to speak for anybody 
except for myself, and the constituency I in pfirt 
represent. 

Another branch of this report, to which I desire 
to call attention, is in these words : 

" In obedience to the Constitution, the Kansas- 
' Nebraska act declared, in the precise language 
' of the CompromiseMeasuresof 1850, that 'when 
' admitted as a State, the said Territory, or any 
' portion of the same, shall be received into the 
' Union with or without Slavery, as their Consti- 
' tution may prescribe at the time of their ad- 
' mission. ' " 

From this clause, whicU has no practical effect 
whatever, eitiier in the Compromise Measures of 
1850 or the Kansas-Nebraska act, it has been 
contended tliat the Compromise Measures of 1850 
were inconsistent with the Compromise of 1820. 
I deny the position. There is no inconsistency 
between them. The Missouri Compromise, as 
already shown, did not prevent the admission oi 
a State into the Union with or without Slavery, 
as its Constitution might prescribe at the time of 
its admission. The clause incorporated into the 
Kansas-Nebraska act does not have the effect to 
bring a State into the Union, eitherwith or with- 
out Slavery, or to bind any future Congress to do 
90. Congress will act on tliat question when it 
arises. When Kansas shall present herself, with 
a Constitution either establishing or prohibiting 
Slavery, is there any Senator who will consider 
himself bound by a declaratory provision inserted 
in the act organizing Iier Territorial Government? 
I presume not. Tliis report concludes with tlie 
recommendation of the passage of a bill to enable 
the i)eople of Kansas to form a State Government. 
Is it not competent for Congress, if it should think 
proper, to insert in that bill a jirovision that this 
particular clause shall be repealed, or to insert 



a clause, that Slavery shall not exist in Kansas 
while a Territory? 

The assumption, then, that the clause which I 
have cited, and which was in.=?erted in the Terri- 
torial acts of 1850, is inconsistent with the Mis- 
souri Compromise, is not maintainable, unless you 
say that the Missouri Compromise, prohibiting 
Slavery in "a Territory, \s to have effect after that 
Territory becomes a State, which I deny. This 
report proceeds to quote further from the Kanaaa- 
Nebraska act, as follows: 

" It being the true intent and meaning of this 
' act, not to legislate Slavery into any State or 
' Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to 
' leave the people thereof perfectly free to form 
' and regulate their domestic institutions in their 
' own way, subject only to the Constitution of 
' the United States." 

Why thrust into this provision the word State? 
as if there were somebody in the country who 
wanted Congress to legislate Slavery into a Stat© 
or out of a State? No person, as far as I know, 
maintains such a position ; and it is well knowa 
that this clause in the Kansa.s-Nebraska act, 
couched in the language in which it is, has given 
rise to various constructions in diiferent parts of 
the Union. I believe it is the universal under- 
standing with Southern men, that under this 
provision they have a right to go with their 
slaves into the Territory of Kansas, and hold 
them there as such. A majority of those who 
voted for the Kansas-Nebraska act, and who car- 
ried it througli Congress, understand that tha 
moment the Missouri Compromise was repealed, 
those Territories were open to the admission of 
Slavery. This has lieen the practical operation 
of the law. I have in ray possession the proceed- 
ings of a mass meeting held in the Territory of 
Kansas, as early as September, 1354, before any 
Territorial Legislature convened, and of course 
before there was any legislative action in tha ■ 
Territory on the subject of Slavery. Among their 
resolutions I find these, endorsing the principles 
of the Kansas Squatter Society: 

" That Kansas Territory, and as a consequence 
' the State of Kansas, of right should be, and 
' therefore shall be, Slave Territory. 

" We hereby declare that, as this [Squatters'] 
' society embraces nine-tenths of the present set- 
' tiers of this Territory, we are entitled to and 
' will exercise the right of expelling from the Ter- 
' ritory, or otherwise punishing, any individual 
' or individuals who may come among us, and 
' by act, conspiracy, or other illegal means, en- 
' tico aAvay our slaves, or clandestinely attempi 
' in any way or form to affect our rights of prop- 
' erty in the same."' j 

llow did it happen that there were slaves il 
the Territory at tliat early day, and that nine 
tenths of the settlers should resolve to expel fron 
the Territory any individual who should atterap 
to alfect their right of jjroj.erty in the same, ua 
less, in tha absence of any local law on the sub 
ject, the pro-slavery party supposed they had i 
right to liold slaves in the Territory? This ac» 
tiou of the Squatters' Society took place before 
the tirat emigrants who went to Kansas under tho 
patronage of the Emigrant Aid Society had a 



II 



rlreil in tte Territory, and sliows, not onlj the 
construction the Squatters' Society put on the 
Kansas-Nebraska act, but a tixed determination, 
from the outset, to force Slavery into Kansas by 
fiolence. 

I am aware that the Kansas act was differently 
onderstood in some other parts of the Union. 
The distinguished Senator from Michigan [Mr. 
Cass] believes, if I understand his position cor- 
rectly, that Slavery cannot exist without a mn- 
nicipal law to protect it ; and that, in the absence 
of any local law on the subject, Slaverj' cannot 
legally exist in any of our Territories. That was 
the doctrine of the whole country a few years 
ago. The committee have not thought proper to 
tell us, in this lengthy report, whether it is the 
doctrine now. Such was formerly the law. South 
as well as North. I wish to read an extract, not 
however, from this report, which I have taken 
upon this subject. It is this : 

" The relation of owner and slave is. in the 
' States of the Union in which it has legal exist- 
' ence, a creature of municipal law. Although, 
' perhaps, in none of them a statute introducing 
' it as to the blacks can be produced, it is be- 
' Ireved that in all, statutes were passed for reg- 
' ulating and dissolving it." 

Here is a direct assertion that Slavery, in the 
States where it exists, is a creature of municipal 
law ; and from what source do you suppose it 
eomes? Probably the " New England P^migrant 
Aid Society"' have advanced that oi)inion. No, 
sir; it is the doctrine promulgated in the State 
of Louisiana, by its Supreme Court, (14 Martin's 
Louisiana Reports, 401.) Again, I read from an- 
other decision: 

" Slavery is condemned by reason and the laws 
' of nature; it exists, and can only exist, through 
' municipal regulations." 

Whence do you suppose this sentiment comes, 
■which, if promulg.ated in Kansas, would subject 
its author to punishment? It was proclaimed 
as law by the courts of Mississippi, and is to 
be found in 1 Walker's Mississippi Reports, at 
page 36. I could detain the Senate for hours in 
reading from the opinions of courts in various 
sections of the Union, establishing this same prin- 
©iple ; but a change has occurred. The entire 
South, so far as I know, and some even in the 
North, now repudiate the doctrine, and those who 
still adhere to it are stigmatized by many as Ab- 
olitionists. This is an evidence of the advance 
which pro- slavery sentiments are making in the 
•ountry. 

But, sir, the Kansas-Nebraska act is under- 
stood differently in different sections of the Union, 
in another respect. In the North, it is very gen- 
erally insisted, that under that act the Territorial 
Legislature has the right to establish or abolish 
Slavery ; but, in the South, that position is con- 
troveried. The assumption is now put forth, that 
Slavery, by virtue of the Constitution of the 
United States, may lawfully exist in the Territo- 
ries, and that the Territorial Legislatures have 
no power to exclude it. 

The Kansas-Nebraska act, having, as has been 
shown, no fixed and certain principle, but subject 
to as many dilTereut veriions as there are sections 



in the Union, and upon which opposite construc- 
tions may be put with equal plaua-ibility, to suit 
the peculiar views of each locality, is the law 
which is so much extolled in this report, which, 
however, omits to explain the meaning of tb« 
principle it so much eulogizes, and about which 
so much controversy has arisen ; but its authw:, 
[Mr. Douglas,] in a speech delivered in this 
body, in 1850, showed the fallacy of the positions 
now assumed by the South, and that to prohibit 
Slavery in a Territory was no violation of South- 
ern riehts. He then said : 

" What share had the South in the Territories ? 
' or the North ? or any other geographical divis- 
' ion unknown to the Constitution? I answer. 
' none ; none at all. The Territories belong to 
' the United States as one people, one nation, and 
' are to be disposed of for the common benefit of 
' all, according to the principles of the Constitu- 
' tion. Each State, as a member of the Confed- 
' eracy, has a right to a voice in forming the rules 
' and regulations for the government of the Ter- 
' ritories ; but the different sections — North, Soutli, 
' East, and West — have no such right. It is do 
' violation of Southern rights to prohibit Slavery, 
' nor of Northern rights to leave the people to 
' decide the question for themselves." 

Again, in the same speech, my colleague said : 

" Some species of property are excluded by 
' law in most of the States, as well as Territories. 
' as being unwise, immoral, or contrary to the 
' principles of sound public policy. For instance, 
' the banker is prohibited from emigrating to Min- 
' nesota, Oregon, or California, with his bank. 
'#rhe bank may be property by the laws of New 
' York, but ceases to be so when taken into a 
' State or Territory where banking is prohibited 
' by the local law. So, ardent spirits, whisky, 
' brandy, all the intoxicating drinks, are recog- 
' nised and protected as property in most of th« 
' States, if not all of them ; but no citizea, 
' whether from the North or South, can take thi« 
' species of property with him, and hold, sell, or 
' use it at his pleasure, in all the Territories, bc- 
' cause it is prohibited by the local law — in Ore- 
' gon by the statutes of the Territory, and in tho 
' Indian country by the acts of Congress. Nor 
' can a man go there, and take and hold his slave, 
' for the same reason. These laws, and many 
' others involving similar principles, are directed 
' against no section, and impair the rights of no 
' State of the Union. They are laws against the 
' introduction, sale, and use of specific kinds of 
' property, whether brought from the North or 
' the South, or from foreign countries." 

The distinguished Senator from Michigan, in 
his speech when the Kansas-Nebraska act was 
under consideration, devoted a large portion of it 
to this question, and proved conclusively that 
the exclusion of slaves from a Territory WJis no 
encroachment upon the equal rights of the peopla 
of the South. 

Now, sir, I assert that the boasted principle of 
the Kansas-Nebraska act, which is claimed to bo 
of such vital moment, has no sort of importanc« 
except for evil, in consequence of its vagueneas 
and uncertainty; that it is a principle which is 
not understood alike in the North ami in the 



8 



Sonth; and that, Trhile much pains is taken in 
the report to discuss constitutional questions, it 
does not inform us whether, under the Constitu- 
tion and the Kansas act, slaves may rightly be 
taken to and held in that Territory, in the absence 
of any municipal law on the subject. Nor are 
we told distinctly, in the report, whether the Ter- 
ritorial Legislature has a right to prohibit or to 
establish Slavery. I admit it does tell us that 
the people of the Territory arc to regulate their 
own domestic institutions in their own way ; but 
when, is not said. 

This clause is understood by some to apply to 
the people of a Territory when they come to 
form a State Government, and that they are to be 
permitted thm, and not before, to regulate their 
own domestic institutions in their own way. 
That I believe to be the Southern understanding 
of the bill. But the author of the report has 
not thought proper to tell us distinctly whether 
it is his understanding or not. 

I come next to that portion of the report which 
assails the Emigrant Aid Society. Sir, I am not 
the apologist of that society. There are Sena- 
tors here much better acquainted with its opera- 
tions, and much more capable of defending it, if 
it needs defence, than I am ; but I wish to look 
at it in the light in which it is presented in this 
-report. I will not travel out of the record after 
rumors, as has sometimes been charged, but will 
take the statements of the report itself, and then 
tall the attention of the Senate to the doctrines 
which were promulgated when the Kansas-Ne- 
braska act was passed, and ask whether there be 
ajnything in the action of the Emigrant Aid So- 
ciety, as sci forth, not as argued, in the report at 
all inconsistent with the doctrines which were 
promulgated on all sides of the Senate when 
that act was under consideration. The report 
says : 

''Although the act of incorporation does not 
' distinctly declare that the company was formed 
' for the purpose of controlling the domestic in- 
' stitutions of the Territory of Kansas, and forc- 
' ing it into the Union with a prohibition of 
'^ Slavery in her Constitution, regardless of the 
' rights and wUhes of the people, as guarantied by 
^ the Constitution of the United States, and secured 
I by their organic law, yet the whole history of 
^the luovemont, the circumstances in which it 
'•had its origin, and the professions and avowals 
' of all engaged in it, render it certain and unde- 
* niablo that such was its object." 

Thus the charge is distinctly made, that the 
object of the Emigrant Aid Society was, " regard- 
' less of the rights and wishes, of the peopTe as 
I guarantied by the Constitution of the United 

States, and secured by their organic law," " to 
I force Kansas into the Union with a prohibition 

of Slavery in her Constitution." Let us see 
how that charge compares witli the declarations 
of Senators at the time the bill was under con- 
8iderati.on. The Senator from New Ilanipslure 
[Mr. Halk] took the trouble, a few days since, 
to read to the Senate the opinions of Senators, 
both from the North and the South, delivered 
when that bill was pending ; and I think he read 
from the remarks of ten or a dozen Senators, in 



which they stated in the strongest language that 
the question of the repeal of the Missouri Com- 
promise was of no practical importance, and that 
Slavery could never go to Kansas. It was then 
asserted, by some of the advocates of thp bill, that 
every sensible man knew, and every candid man 
would admit, that soil and climate forbade the 
introduction of slaves into the Nebraska-Kansas 
region, which is all above 36° 30^ This opinion 
was sustained, as the Senator from New Hamp- 
shire proved, by Mr. Pettit, of Indiana; Mr. 
Hunter, of Virginia ; Mr. Touccy, of Connecticut; 
Mr. Thomson, of x\ew Jersey ; Mr. Brodhead, of 
Pennsylvania ; Mr. Badger, of North Carolina ; 
Mr. Everett, of Massachusetts, (who quotes, as 
sustaining him in his opinion, "what everybody 
knew ; ") Mr. Douglas, of Illinois ; Mr. Dixon, 
of Kentucky; Mr. Jones, of Tennessee; and Mr. 
Cass, (who quotes all these.) All these Senators, 
except Mr. Everett, were advocates of the bill; 
and it was proclaimed on all sides of the Senate 
that no practical importance attached to the 
repeal of the Missouri Compromise, because Kan- 
sas was not intended to be a slave Territory, and 
Slavery would never go there. One Senator, on 
a previous occasion, had said , " I know of no 
' man who advocates the e.xtension of Slavery 
' over country now free." This was very strong 
language, and it is to be found in a speech de- 
livered in the Senate, in 1849, by the author of 
the report upon which I am commenting, and 
afterwards reported in the Congressional Globe. 
It was proclaimed to the world by the advocates 
of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, that Kan.sf.s was to 
be a free Territory. It was said on the flice of 
the bill that its intention was " not to legislate 
Syavery into" the Territory. Then, let me ask, 
how did the Emigrant Aid Society, as is charged 
in this report, act " regardless of the rights and 
wishes of the people," as secured by the organic 
act, in aiding to settle Kansas with a free Stato 
population ? It was proclaimed to the citizens 
of Massachusetts, that Kansas was to be a free 
State. Gentlemen from the South said they ex- 
pected nothing else. Still, when a society is 
formed for the purpose of aiding emigrants to 
settle in it as a free Territory, and to make it a 
free State, they are charged with acting " regard- 
less of the principles " of the Kansas-Nebraska 
act ! 

Again, the report states that the society secured 
the color of legal authority to sanction their pro- 
ceedings, and acted " in perversion of the plain 
provisions of an act of Congress." The objects 
of the Emigrant Aid Society, as set out in the 
report, are said to be, to aid emigrants going to 
Kansas, with the expectation that it will be a free 
State. Was not that your expectation here ? 
Now, it is charged upon those who went to work 
to accomplish the very object which you your- 
selves said was to be brought about, that they 
acted " in perversion of the plain provisions of 
an act of Congress." A plain statement of facts 
is all that is necessary to expose the unfairness 
of this part of the report. .Let the people — the 
candid and the considerate, those not led by im- 
pulse and prejudice, but by their reason and 
judgmeut — look at the facts, and ask themaelTCS 



9 



if the persons assisted on their way to Kansas by 
the Emigrant Aid Society did anything \vron<r_ 
It they violated any provision of 'the organic 'act 
when they went there to do tliat which, upon all 
Bides, it was admitted was to be done ? 

Again, this report, after admitting the right of 
persons Irom any quarter to go to ^he Territory 
and settle as independent freemen, says : ' 

" But it is a very different thing'where a State 
creates a vast moneyed corporation for the pur- 
pose of controlling the domestic institutions of 
a distmct political community filteen hundred 
miles distant, and sends out the emigrants only 
as a means of accomplishing its paramount 
political objects. When a powerful corpora- 
tion, with a capital of $5,000,000 invested in 
houses and lands, in merchandise and railh in 
' cannon and rifles, in powder and lead, in all the 
implements of art, agriculture, and war, and 
employing a corresponding number of men all 
' under the management and control of non-res- 
ident directors and stockholders, who are au- 
' thorized by their charter to vote by proxy +o 
' the extent of fifty votes each, enters a distant 
and sparsely-settled Territory with the fixed pur- 
pose of wielding all in its power to control the 
domestic institutions and destinies of the Ter- 
* ritory " — 

And so it would he a very different thlno- • but 
>!as any such thing occurred ? Nerer. Th^e 'pro- 
ceedings of the Emigrant Aid Society, which are 
incorporated in the report, do not set forth any 
such state of fact. They do not show that the 
Emigrant Aid Society has invested a capital of 
^5,000,000, or one cent, in powder and ball in 
cannon and rifle. Oh, no I The report is very 
tar trom charging that. Such a charge, if made 
could be met and refuted. What Ischartred'' 
It is alleged in the report that an Emigrant'' Aid 
Society was incorporated, &c. ; and then it de- 
cJaims against a society that should invest its 
means m powder and cannon, rifle and ball, to 
control the domestic institutions of a distant Ter- 
ritory. This is not charged directly upon the 
Emigrant Aid Society, but by inference only 
When a society shall be found so engaged in 
fact, I will unite with the committee in" opposi- 
tion to its insurrectionary movements ; but I am 
not Quixotic enough to combat with windmills 
and shadows. 

A society relying upon force and ammunition 
for its success would more nearly resemble those 
which were organized in western Missouri ; and 
the mistake on the part of the author of this elab- 
orate report seems to have been in assigning the 
formation and existence of the society he de- 
ftcribed to a wrong locality. 

We might take\ip the charter of the Goloniza- 
tioti Society, and, after reading it, proceed to de- 
daim against the abomination of getting up an 
organization to produce insurrection among the 
negroes ; bat the Colonization Society and insur- 
rection would have no more to do with each other 
tlian good and evil. They are as far apart as the 
poles ; and so is the real action of the Emigrant 
Aid Society and that action which is argued 
against in this report. It is against assumptions 
of this kind in the report that I am speaking. 



Uere is another specimen of its fairness : 
^ '• When the emigrants sent out bv the Massa- 
^ c uisctts Emigrant Aid Company, and their af- 
hhated societies, passed through the State of 
• Jlissouri, in large numbers, on their way to Kan- 
sas, the violence of their language, and the un- 
I raistakable indications of the"ir determined hos- 
' tility to the domestic institutions of that State 
' excited apprehensions that the object of the 
' company was to aholitionize Kansas." 

AVhat ! " aboUlionize Kansas ! " It was said on 
all sides of the Senate Chamber, that it was never 
meant to have Slavery go into Kansas. What is 
meant, then, by abolifionizing Kansas? Is it 
abolitionizing a Territory already free, and which 
was never meant to be anything but free, fbr 
Free State men to settle in it?'l cannot understand 
the force of such language; but they were to ab- 
olitionize Kansas, according to this report: and 
for what purpose? " As a means for prosecuting 
' a relentless warfare on the institution of Slavery 
' within the limits of Missouri." Where is the 
evidence that such was the design? I would lik« 
to see it. It is not in this report ; and if it ex- 
ists, I will go as f-AV as the gentleman to put It 
down. I will neither tolerate nor countenance, 
by my action here or elsewhere, any society 
which is resorting to means for prosecuting a 
'' relentless warfare upon the institution of Sla- 
very within the limits of Missouri," or any other 
State. But there is not a particle of evidence of 
any such intention in the documeiU which pro- 
fesses to set forth the acts of the Emigrant Aid 
Society, and which is incorporated into this re- 
port. • But the report goes further, and says: 

'• The natural consequence was, that irniuedi- 
' ate steps were taken by the people of the wesfr- 
' ern counties of Missouri to stimulate, organ- 
' ize, and carry into effect a svstom of emigration 
' similar to that of the Massachusetts Emigrant 
' Aid Company, for the avowed purpose of coun- 
' teracting the effects, and protecting themselves 
' and their domestic institutions from the cons€- 
' quences-of that company's operations. 

" The material difference in the character of 
■ the two rival and conflicting movements con- 
' sists in the fact, that the one had its origin in 
an aggressive, and the other in a defensive pol- 
icy; the one organized in pursuance Oi" the \no- 
visions and claiming to act under the authority 
of a legislative enactment of a distant Stat*, 
whose internal prosperity and domestic security 
did not depend upon the success of the move- 
ment; while the other was the spontaneous ae- 
tion of the people living in the immediate vicin- 
ity of the theatre of operations, excited by a 
sense of common danger to the necessity of 
protecting their own firesides from the appre- 
' hended horrors of servile insurrection and in- 
' tcstine war." 

I could bring the President of the United States 
as a witness against these assumptions; for be 
has told us, in his special message on Kansas af- 
fairs, in alluding to the action of the Emigrant 
Aid Society, that its action was " far from justi- 
' fying the illegal and reprehensible counter- 
' movements which ensued." 
Now, sir, what are the facts ? Will those two 



10 



moveiHents bear comparison at all? Arc they of 
the same character? The report sets forth, iu its 
most objcclionable features, no doubt, the action 
of the limigrant Aid Society, and it amounts sim- 
ply to this: that it was taking measures to aid 
persons on their way to Kansas for the settlement 
of the countr}^, to remain there as settlers. There 
is not a particle of evidence in the report — it is 
not even asserted — that the emigrants who went 
forth uader the patronage of the Emigrant Aid 
Society did not go to Kansas to reside. There 
may be an argument in the report against per- 
sons who went there under tlie patronage of that 
society without the intention of residing: but 
there is no allegation that any such did go. 

Well, sir, wliat are the 'facts in reference to the 
organizations in the western counties of Missouri? 
I shall not detain the Senate by going over a mi- 
nute history of the transactions on that border. 
The Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Wilsox,] 
a few days ago, did that; and he showed that 
men went into Kansas from Missouri in orgaa- 
isicd companies, with music beating and banners 
flying; that they went to the polls, took posses- 
sion of them, and TOted : that in that Territory, 
where there were but 2,877 voters when the cen- 
sus was taken in February, more than 6,000 votes 
were cast in the month of March following. He 
read from papers to show that the Missourians 
returned in companies to their homes, after the 
election was over. The matter was of public no- 
toriety. Everybody knew it. Is there any in- 
stance where the Emigrant Aid Society, or per- 
sons sent out under its patronage, ever drove a 
man from the polls ? It is not pretended. Is 
there any comparison between the peaceable em- 
i^Tant who goes into a Territory to settle and re- 
side, and an army of invaders who go there to 
impose laws on its defenceless inhabitants? To 
show the spirit of the men upon the Missouri 
border, and those affiliated with them in Kansas, 
I will read an article from the Squatter Sovereign 
of May 29, 1S55, which was before the Legisla- 
ture met; this is it: 

"From reports now received of Reeder, he never 
' intends returning to our borders. Should he do 
' sa, we, without hesitation, s.ay that our people 
' ought to hang him by the neck like a traitor- 
' ous dog as he is, so soon as he puts his uuhal- 
' lowed feet upon our shores. 

" Vindicate your characters and the Territory; 
' and' should the ungrateful dog dare to come 
' among us agaiu, hang him to the iirst rotten 
' tree. 

"A military force to protect the ballot-box! 
' Let President Pierce or Governor lleeder, or any 
' other power, attempt such a course in this, or 
' any portion of the Union, and that day will 
' never be forgotten. " 

The paper which contained this article has 
flaunting at its head these words: "In this pa- 
' per the laws of Congress are published by au- 
' thority. " The editors of the paper arc " String- 
' fellow anil Kelly." It will be remembered that 
th9 election for members of the Legislature took 
place on the .30th of March, 1855. 

In the Sfuatler Horereign of Ajiril 1, following, 
is published this article : 



" I.N-»Bi'BXDF.NCs, Murch 31, 1855. 

" Several hundred emigrants from Kunsas have 
' just entered our city. They were preceded by 
' the Westport and Independence brass bands. 
' They came in at the west side of the public 
' square, and proceeded entirely around it, th« 
' bands cheering us with fine music, and the eml- 
' grants with good news. Immediately foUow- 
' ing the bands were about two hundred borse- 
' men, in regular order; following these were oua 
' hundred and fifty wagons, carriages, &c. They 
' gave repeated cheers for Kansas and Missouri. 
' They report that not an Anti-Slavery man will 
' be in the Legislature of Kansas. We have made 
' a clean sweep.'' 

Had the Emigrant Aid Society been guilty of 
half the outrages which are here published to the 
world with impunity by the Missourians, do j'ou 
believe the facts would have been smothered up 
by this report? The most objectionable features 
in the transactions of that Society are set forth in 
the report ; and is there anything in them to com- 
pare with what the Jlissourians boast of having 
done? Two hundred horsemen were following in 
the rear of the army as it returned from Kansas — 
the army which, in the language of Governor 
Reeder, while Governor, had " conquered and 
subjugated " the people of the Territory. And 
this we are told was an organization similar to 
the Emigrant Aid Society. 

Next, Mr. President, the report gives in detail 
the proceedings of Governor Reeder prep.aratory 
to the election, the orders which he issued for 
protecting the polls, and various matters con- 
nected with the election. Bear in mind that it 
does not deny this invasion from Missouri. Xo, 
sir, that fact is too well authenticated ; but it ar- 
gues that the persons elected as members of the 
Territorial Legislature received certificates of 
election from Governor Reeder, were recognised 
by him as a Legislature, and therefore its acts 
are binding 1 That is the substance of the argu- 
ment. It does not pretend to deny that the elec- 
tions were carried by fraud ; that the people of 
Kansas were conquered and driven from the polls, 
as was published and alleged all over the coun- 
try, and is a fact as well known to every intelli- 
gent man in the land as it is that the English and 
the Russians have l.itely been at war. 

Buf, sir, it is said that the laws passed by this 
spurious Legislature are binding, and are to bo 
enforced at the point of the bayonet; and those 
who deny their validity are to be treated as ia- 
surrectlouistd and traitors. The action of Govero- 
or Reeder is referred to as giving validity to th« 
Legislature of the oppressors. Can that give any 
force to these acts, if the facts alleged be true? 
Does the report meet the real question at issue ? 
If it be true that the elections in any Territory 
of this Union were carried by people from a 
neighboring State, or from a foreign country, and 
a Legislature were thereby imposed upou the 
people of the insulted Territory, I ask, is thera 
a man in America who would have the hardihood 
to say that the acts of the Legislature must b% 
obeyed, because the Governor of the Territory 
had recognised it, or because those elected by 
the invaders decided their election to be valid ? 



Of course the Legislature so decided. Did you 
osrer know a tyrant or a despot trampling on the 
neckp of his subjects deny his own right to do 
so? Such an act vould bo the most remarkable 
exliibition the world ever saw. And yet it is 
gravely argued in thi.s report, that, because the 
oppressors decided that thoy bad the right to 
oppress, we cannot, therefore, inquire into the 
fact whether they were oppressors or not. It 
has been contended, in debate here, that we are 
estopped from looking into the transaction, in 
consequence of the acts of Gorernor Reeder. 

Sir, who was Governor Heeder? An instru- 
ment in the hands of the Executive, appointed by 
tbe President of the United States, and removable 
at his will. It has been contended that the Kan- 
gas-Nebraska act established the principle of self- 
government and popular sovereignty in the people 
of the Territory; but when you look into the act, 
you find that the Govcrpor is not elected by the 
people, that they have no voice in his election, or 
in his removal, but that ho is the mere insti-ument 
of the President, and liable to be removed at any 
moment. 

I deny that a Territorial Governor can make 
Talid the acts of aa assembly of usurpers, by 
recognising them as a Legislature. The great fact 
remains, and it is not met by the report, that the 
people of Kansas have been conquered, as the 
Governor himself once said, and a Legisbitnre 
has been imposed upon tliem by violence. With- 
out denying this, the report, to use a legal phrase, 
demurs to the declaration, thereby admitting the 
charge, but denying that it affords any reason 
why the acts of such a Legislature should not be 
enforced ! 

But, sir, an attempt is made to get rid of the 
odium justly attaching to many of the acts of 
this spurious Legislature, not by directly dany- 
ing the existence of the obnoxious acts, but by 
introducing into the report the proceedings of a 
Convention of the people of Kansas, composed 
chiefly of office-holders, as it would seem — the 
Governor, judges, marshal, and district attorney, 
being present — which undertook to say that the 
laws of the Legislature had been most grossly 
misrepresented. I wish to look a little at the 
justification thus set up, and see whether it is 
warranted by the facts. That Convention de- 
clares : 

" It has been charged, and widely circulated, 

* that the Legislature, in order to perpetuate their 
' rule, had passed a law prescribing the qualifica- 
' tion ot voters, by which it is declared ' that any 
' one may vote who will swear allegiance to tlic 
' Fugitive Slave Law, the Kansas and Nebraska 
' Bill, and pay one dollar;' such is declared to 
' be the evidence of citizenship, such the qualifi- 
' cation of voters. In reply to this, we say that 
' no such law was ever passed by the Legislature. 
' The law prescribing tlie qualification of voters 
' expressly provides that to entitle a person to 
' Tote, he "must be twenty-ono years of age, an 
' actual inhabitant of this Territory and of the 

* couiity or district in whicli he oifers to vote, 

* and shall have paid a Territorial tax. There U 
' no law requirin;j him to jjai/ a dollar tax: as a qital- 
' ificulion to vote.'' 



TVe happen to have the laws here, and I wish 
to call attention to some of their provisions. In 
chapter 138 of the Kansas Statutes is this pro- 
vision: 

" In addition to the provisions of the act entl- 
' tied 'An act for the collection of the revenue,' 
' the sheriff of each and every countj' shall, on 
' or before the first Monday of October, 1855, col- 
' lect the sum of one dollar, as a poll tax, from 
' each person in the said Territory of Kansas who 
' may be entitled to vote in said Territory, as it 
' provided iu the said act to which this is supplo- 
' mentary." 

In chapter 6G of the same book, the qualifica- 
tion of voters is prescribed as follows : 

" Every free white m;ile citizen of the United 
' States, and every free male Indian who is made 
' a citizen by treaty or otherwise, and over tb« 
' age of twenty-one years, who sliall be an i«- 
' habitant of this Territory, and of the county or 
' district in which he offers to vote, and shall 
' have paid a Territorial tax, shall be a qualified 
' voter." 

Section thirteen declares : 

" It shall be the duty of the sheriff to have his 

' tax-book at the place of holding elections, and 

' to receive, receipt for, and enter upon his tax- 

' book, all taxes which may be tendered him on 

I ' the day of any election." 

Do not these statutes prove the Iruth of tbo 
allegation which the office-holders' Convention 
has undertaken to deny? Is it not true that any 
inhabitant may vote who will pay his dollar tax ? 
Is not every voter required to pay the tax? Is 
not the sheriff required to be present at the poll* 
to receive it? Is any residence necessary? Not 
a day. It is enough if he who claims the right 
of suffrage is at the time an "inhabitant" of tbo 
Territory and district where he offers to vote. 
We all understand how this word •• inhabitant " 
may be construed so as to require nothing moM 
than inhabitancy at the moment of voting. 

Mr. COLLAMER. I will remark to the gen- 
tleman, if he will allow me, that the law requi- 
i ring a poll tax, and providing for its collection, 
was to take effect immediately ; and the other law 
which he has read was to take effect in October. 
185t;. One was the dollar tax, and the other a 
fifty cent tax ; and provision was made for pay- 
ing at any time a man pleased. 

Mr. TRUMBULL. I think, then, that the alle- 
gations which have gone abroad are fully sus- 
tained by an examination of the statutes them- 
selves, and that the Convention of Kansas office- 
holders were themselves mistaken. Another 
section of the election law declares that any 
person offering to vote shall be presumed entitled 
to vote ; but if his right is challenged, he is re- 
quired to swear to support the Kansas-Nebraska 
act and the Fugitive Slave Law. There are many 
persons who would object to swearing to sustain 
the Fugitive Slave Law; and are they to bo de- 
prived of the right of suffrage on that account? 
I will not undertake to justify people who set at 
defiance the P'ugitive Slave act. My opiniorv is, 
that under the Constitution of the country the 
owners of slaves have a right to a reasonabla 
law for their reclamation when they escape. 



12 



These are my views. I avo"w them here and 
everywhere. But, while such is my opinion, I do 
not think it proper to prevent an individual who 
thinks difrercntly, and who believes the Fugitive 
Slave Law to be unconstitutional, from voting. 
There are pursons, South as well as North, who 
believe it to be unconstitutional; and to require 
of such persons, or any person, an oath to sup- 
port it as a qualification to vote, is oppressive. 
There are features in the Fugitive Slave act re- 
pulsive to many persons. No man wants to take 
an oath to assist in apprehending runaway ne- 
goes. 

^^gain, it is said, in reference to this election 
law: 

" It is difhcult to see how a more guarded law 
' could be fr.'imed for the purpose of protecting 
' the purity of elections and the sanctity of the 
' ballot-box." 

It is ditficult to see how a more guarded law 
could be framed than that which permits any male 
citizen of twenty-one years of age to vote, who is 
an inhabitant of the Territory, and pays a dollar ! 
That is a guarded law, in the opinion of the offi- 
cials of Kansas. Again, they say : 

" It has also been charged against the Legisla- 
' ture, that they elected all the officers of the 
' Territory for six years. This is without any 
' foundation. They elected no ofiicer for six 
' years ; and the only civil officers they retain the 
' election of, that occur to us at present, are the 
' Auditor and Treasurer of State, and the district 
' attorneys, who hold their offices for four and 
' not six years. By the organic act, thecommis- 
' sions issued by the Governor to the civil officers 
' of the Territory all expired on the adjournment 
' of the Legislature. To prevent a failure in tlic 
' local administration, and from necessitj', the 
' Legislature made a number of temporary ap- 
' pointracnts, such as probate judge, and two 
' county commissioners and a sheriff for each 
' county. The probate judge and county com- 
' missioners constitute the tribunal for the trans- 
' action of county business, and arc invested wi^'h 
' the power to appoint justices of the peace, con- 
' stable?, county surveyors, recorder, and clerk, 
' &c. Probate judges, county commissioners, 
' bheriffs, kc, are all temporary appointments, 
' and are made elective by the people at the first 
* annual election in 185T." 

No^7 for the facts: chapter 93, section 4, of the 
Kansas Laws, is as follows : 

'• Every justice of the peace shall hold his office 
' for the term of five years, and until his successor 
' is duly chosen and qualified." 

That is very plain. Justices of the peace are 
to hold their oflices for five years, and that is, I 
suppose, considered but temporarily in Kansas. 
Another act, chapter 37, provides for the organi- 
Eation of Arrapaboe county, and section 2 is ns 
follows: " Allen P. Tibetts is hereby appointed 
judge of the probate court of Arrapahoe county." 

Section 4 declares : 

" The said judge of probate shall have power 
' to appoint such officers of the county as are 
' specified in this act, and not appointed, and 
^justify the same. All such appointments made 



' by the judge of probate shall be entered of 
' record." 

Section 8 declares : 

"The said judge of probate shall have full 
' power to appoint a justice or justices of the 
' peace within and for said county. Section 9. 
' There shall be appointed by said judge one 
' sheriff, one treasurer, (who s^all be ex officio 
' assessor,) and one surveyor." 

The Legislature create a judge, who is author- 
ized to appoint the sheriff, the treasurer, justices 
of the peace for five years — all the officers ; and 
this is what is denominated the "self-government," 
and " popular sovereignty," guarantied by the 
Kansas-Nebraska act to the people of those Ter- 
ritories, and these are the laws which are to be 
enforced. at the point of the bayonet. 

I come now to a portion of this report with 
which I am very much gratified, apart of it which 
I can endorse, as enunciating the true doctrine in 
reference to the rights of a people in a Terri- 
tory; but it is verj- much at war with that other 
doctrine which has been proclaimed throughout 
the land on nearly every stump in the West, thaA 
the people of a Territory possess the power of 
self government, and the right of sovereignty. 
The question has been asked over and over again, 
by every village politician advocating the Kansas- 
Nebraska act, " Why does not a man possess just 
as much power to govern himself when he moves 
out of a State into a Territory, as he did when b« 
lived in a State ? " The question has been asked 
of assembled thousands, "Do youlose your sense? 
when yoti go into a Territory, that you cannot 
govern yourselves ?" The "great principle" of 
the Kansas-Nebraska bill was said to be, that it 
guarantied " sovereignty " and " self-government" 
to the people of the Territory. Tlie idea that 
self-government could be derived, and sovereignty 
conferred, was, of course, an absurdity; but 
" self-government and popular sovereignty" wera 
captivating terms, and well calculated to mislead. 
They have answered their purpose, and are now 
cast aside. The report says : 

" The sovereignty of a Territory remains in 
' abeyance, suspended in the United States, in 
' trust for the people, until they shall be admitted 
' into the Union as a State." 

Never was a truer sentiment advanced ; and 
I hope never again to hear of " squatter sover- 
' eignty," "popular sovereignty," and "self-gov- 
• ernment," as applied to the people of a Territory 
under a Territorial Government ; but the very 
next sentence of the report has the word " self- 
government" crowded into it, as if it would not 
do to omit it altogether. Hence it is asserted, 
that the people of the Territory " are entitled to 
' enjoy and exercise all the privileges and right* 
' of self-ijov.'^rnmcnl, in subordination to the Con- 
' stitution of the United States, and in obedience 
' to their organic law, passed by Congress in 
' pursuance of that instrument^" 

Nobody ever doubted that they had a right to 
exercise all the jirivileges, not of 4tf//'-government, 
but of government, conferred upon them by the 
organic act. If the word "self" had been left 
out, the sentence would have been complete, and 



13 



consistent with the one which precedes it. The 
report says : 

" These rights and privileges are all derived 
' from the Constitution, through the act of Con- 
gress, and must be exercised and enjoyed in 
subjection to all the limitations and restriction:: 
' which that Constitution imposes. Hence it is 
' clear that the people of the Territory have no 
' inherent sovereign right tinder the Constitution 
' of the United States to annul tlie laws and resist 
' the authority of the Territorial Government 
< which Congress has established in obedience to 
' the Constitution." 

There is the whole doctrine clearly stated. 
The people of a Territory have no inherent rights 
to pass laws except in accordance with the charter 
granted them by Congress. This was the doc- 
trine of the fathers of the Republic; and I rejoice 
exceedingly that the committee have come to 
this conclusion in their report. I hope we shall 
hear no more about this idea of sovereignty in a 
Territory — an idea utterly inconsistent with its 
existence as a part of the Union. Two sovereign- 
ties cannot exist within the same dominion. One 
must be subject to the other. 

The committee attribute the origin of the diffi- 
culties in Kansas to an attempt to violate the 
principle of the organic act. What this principle 
is, the report does not explain, except in the con- 
fused language of the Kansas-Nebraska act, 
which, as has already been shown, is understood 
differently in difl'erent parts of the Union. 

Sir, I do not trace these dilficullies to violations 
of the mongrel principle of the Kansas-Nebraska 
act. That act contains no definite, firced, and 
certain principle. It is admitted in the report 
that all the powers of the people of the Territory 



at that time found the territory which we had 
acquired during the Mexican war with an exist- 
ing law prohibiting Slavery ; and what did Con- 
gress do? Did it repeal that law? Certainly 
not; ban it organized the Territories of Utah and 
New Mexico, leaving the law as it found it. It 
was then contended on this floor by Senators 
North and South, and I could read by the hour 
from the opinions of the most distinguished men 
of this body at that time, to show, that the Mexi- 
can laws by which Slavery was abolished were 
left in full force. That was the opinion of the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan. 

The Committee on Territories, who reported the 
first Nebraska bill, stated that it would be a 
departure from the policy adopted in 1350, which 
was to leave the Territories of Utah and New 
Mexico as Congress found them, with ^lie Mexican 
law untouched, if they were now to introduce a 
provision to repeal the eighth section of the act 
for admitting Missouri into the Union ; and, there- 
fore, they recommended not to repeal that pro- 
vision. Afterwards different counsels prevailed, ~ 
and it is to those different counsels that we owe 
all the excitement, and all the agitation, and all 
the danger, which have grown out of this ques- 
tion. Such was the opinion of the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan at the time the Nebraska 
bill was under consideration ; and, in the com- 
mencement of his remarks on that occasion, he 
expresses his regret that a provision should have 
been introduced to repeal the Missouri Compro- 
mise, and open again the agitation of this dan- 
gerous question. 

Now, sir, what is the remedy? It is obvious. 
If wc could approach this question calmly and 
dispassionately, without excitement ; if Senators 



are in subordination to Congress, and are held could be actuated by that feeling which seemed 
in abeyance by Congress so long as the Territory | to animate them someyears ago, when they said 



lasts. There is no principle established by the 
Territorial act, which has been violated. That 
act professed to throw the whole Territory open 
to competition, or rather the 'authors of the bill 
professed to believe, and informed the country, 
that Slavery was not intended to go into Kansas , 
or Nebraska ; that nobody expected it. It was 
but natural, then, that tliose persons who were 
opposed to Slavery, and who preferred to live in- 
a community where Slavery did not exist, should 
have flocked to that Territory which they were 
told was to be free. This violated no principle 
of the law. 

What, then, sir, is the occasion of the excite- 
ment now existing throughout the length and 
breadth of this land? I will tell yon. It has its 
origin solely in that one fatal mistake made two 
years ago, when the Missouri Compromise was 
repealed. If the policy adopted in 185U, which 
WAS to leave the question of Slavery in a country, 
when organized into a Territory, in the condition 
Congress found it at the time, had been adhered 
to, there would have been no difficulty; we should 
have had no Slavery agitation ; and at this time 
there would have been no occasion for procla- 
mations from the President, nor orders from the 
Secretary of War, to enforce the laws in any ])art 
of the countrj' at the point of the bayonet. The 
policy of 1850 was a let-alone policy. Congress 



they had no expectation of SlAvery going into 
Kansas, and which animated our fathers when 
the Missouri Compromise was adopted, it si^ems to 
mo they would consent to restore it, and in so 
doing they would, in my opinion, in thirty days 
give°peace to the country. If we could forget 
the excitement growing out of misapprehension, 
in different parts of the country, as to the views 
entertained in other parts, and look upon this 
question as friends of the Union, as lovers of 
the Constitution, as men willing to do all that 
lies in our power to perpetuate the glorious herit- 
age which has been handed down to us, I think 
we should be willing to do this. I shall not, 
however, make the proposition, for the reason 
that I cannot see any probability of its passage 
at this time. It should have my ^otc, and I 
should be exceedingly glad to see it proposed 
with a prospect of success, and coming from 
Senators residing in the South. 

But, sir, if that cannot be done, what is it our 
duty to do? Shall we sit still and leave these 
obnoxious laws which have been alluded to, and 
many others to which I have not alluded, but to 
which the attention of the Senate has been hereto- 
fore called in this discussion, in full force ? Is that 
statute to remain in force in the Territory which 
makes it a penal oflence, punishable by impris- 
onment for two years, for a person to say that 



14 



Slavery does not riglitfnlly exist in Kansas? 
Why, sir, before God, I believe it does not right- 
fully exiit there. I'^very man who believes that 
the Territorial Legislature which sat in Kansas 
■was imposed upon the people by fraud and vio- 
lence — ihat it was a usurpation — and that Slavery 
cannot exist without a municipal law to protect 
it, must believe that Slavery does not rightfaily 
exist in Kansas ; and yet he is liable to punish- 
ment for avowing that opinion : and not only for 
avowing it, but for circulating a document that 
avows it ! 

Instead of meeting this question in a fraternal 
spirit, with kindness upon all sides, we hear it 
said that these laws are to be enforced at the point 
of the bayonet ; and the President is commended 
by Senators for the course he has taken in refer- 
ence to this matter. Now, I wish to review the 
Prcsidenrs action upon this subject. I know it 
has been said that the laws are to be enforced, 
and that we must put down traitors and insur- 
rectionists. True, sir; but we must find traitors 
before we hang them ; there must be an insur- 
rection before we undertake to quell it. As yet, 
tliat state of things has not arisen, in my judg- 
ment, which makes it proper to denounce .as trai- 
tors the settlers of Kansas, who have resorted to 
the only means left in their power to escape the 
despotism which is being imi)osed upon them. I 
d& not understand them to have organized anv 
resistance to the General Government I recog'- 
nise the authority of Congress togo\era the Ter- 
ritories of this country while they remun Ter- 
ritories, and deny the rij,'ht of that or any other 
Territory to set at defiance the action of Congress. 
Were the people of Kansas U> do that, and' levy 
war against the United States, they would be 
guilty of treason, and the whole power of the 
Government should be exerted to reduce them to 
subjection and enforce the laws. But that case 
has never arisen, and I trust it never may. It is 
a very dilferent thing from treason for the people 
of Kansas to resist the acts of u.=urpers and 
tyrants. Sir, we are told, by an authoritv little 
less than Divine, that "Resistance to tyrants is 
oboflience to God.". If the LegislAture which ' 
sat in Kansas was composed of men who were 
elected, in defiance of the act of Congress, by an 
array of invaders from abroad, I say there i's no 
obligation on anybody to obey their laws ; and 
80 far from condemning as insurrectionists those 
Who resist thcin, we should strengthen the hands 
of the men who are seeking to set them aside. 

The r.'iessagc and documents the President has 
sctitus are said to contain '-all the information 
oa the subject" of Kansas affairs in the Depart- 
m«nt of State. Tliis was on the 1 8th of February, 
1_85G._ We have, then, before us all the informa- 
tion in the possession of the Executive ou the 
18th of February last. 

To show how the people of Kansas have not 
ody been imposed upon by a spurious Legisla- 
ture, but ;:lso the means which have been resorted 
til to embarrass and place them in a false position 
before the country, and in an altitude of hostility 
to the General Government, I beg nttcntion par- j 
ticularly U) the documents which have been laid 
before us; and I will nndertiike to show, to tUci 



satisfaction cf any intelligent mind, that there waa 
no just occasion for the invasion of Kansas in 
December last ; that it was gotten up, as appears 
from the documents themselves, upon false ru- 
mors, and without sufficient cause. The first w* 
know of this difiiculty is in a telegraphic dispatch 
from the (Governor, Wilson Shannon, as follows; 

" Westport, Missorr.i, December 1, 1855. 
" I desire authority to call on the United States 
' forces at Leavenworth to preserve the peace of 
' this Territory ; to protect the sheriff of Douglas 
' county, and enable him to execute the legal pro- 
' cess in his hands. If the laws are not executed, 
' civil war is ine\ itable. An armed force of one 
' thousand men, with all the implements of wai, 
' it is said, are at Lawrence. They have rescued 
' a prisoner from the sheriff', burnt houses, and 
' threatened the lives of citizens. Immediate 
' assistance is desired. This is the only means 
' to save bloodshed. 

" Particulars by mail. Wil.so.x Shaxnox. 

"77is ExcdUncij Franklin Pierce." 
Kow, sir, on what was Governor Shannon's 
dispatch founded? On Sheriff Jones's letter, 
telling him that Branson, a person arrested on a 
peace-warrant, had been rescued by an armed 
body of between forty and fifty men, as the Gov- 
ernor writes ; but of between thirty and forty, aa 
Buckley, who was present at the time of thcrcs- 
cue, swears. 

This was the immediate and the main cause of 
that modest request of Sheriff Jones for "three 
' thousand men to aid him in the execution of th« 
• warrants in his hands, and to protect him .and 
' his prisoner from violence." The prisoner alluded 
to was Coleman, wlio had killed Dow, but who 
does not appear from the papers communicated 
to have been at the time in the sheriffs custody. 
The affidavits of Jones the sheriff, of Buckley, 
who sued out the peace-warrant against Branson, 
of Hargis, aud the letter of Clark to the Governor, 
all bear date subsequent to the Governor's dis- 
patch to the President, and could not, therefore, 
have furnished the grounds on which it was sent. 
To go still further back, we find there was a very 
slight excuse, either for the suing out of tb« 
peace-warrant, or the conduct of Jones in arrest- 
ing Branson. Ai the risk of making myself some- 
what tedious, I will read a jiortion of Buckley's 
affidavit, made on the 6th of December, 1855, as 
he gives the origin of the siege of Lav/rcnce. B« 
swears : 

•' That he wax informed on good authority, nml 
' which he believed to be true, that Jticob Bran- 
' son had tiireatened his life, both before and 
' after the difficulty between Coleman and Dow, 
• which led to the death of the latter. 1 under- 
' stood that Branson swore that dejionent should 
' not breathe the pure air three minutes after I 
' returned, this dejionent at tliis time having gon« 
'down to Westport, in Missouri; that it wna 
' these threats, made in various shapes, that made 
' tills deponent really fe»r hie life, and which in- 
' duced him to make affidavit against tiio said 
' Branson, aud procure a peace- warrant to issue, 
' and lie placed in the hands of the sheriff of 
' Douglag county j that this deponent was with 



15 



' tho said sheriCF (S. J. Jones) at the time the 
' said Branson was arrested, which took place 
' about two or three o'clock in the morning ; that 
« Branson was in bed when he was arrested by 
' said sheriff; that no pistol or other weapon was 
' presented at the said Branson, by any one ; that 
' after the arrest, and after the company with the 
' sheriff had proceeded about five miles in the 
' direction of Lccompton, the county seat of 
' Douglas county, the said sherilfand his posse were 
' set upon by about between thirty and forty men, 
' who caine out from, behind a house, all armed 
' with Sharpe's rifles, and presented their gun? 
' cocked, and called out who they were; and said 
< Branson replied, that they had got him a prisoner ; 
' and these armed men called on him to come 
' away. Branson then went over on their side, 
' and Sheriff Jones said they were doing some- 
' thing ihey would regret hereafter, in resisting 
' the laws ; that he was sheriff of Douglas county. 
' and as such had arrested Branson. Thcsearmed 

• men replied, that they had no laws, no shcrilf, 
' and no Governor ; and that they knew no laws 
' but their guns. The sheriff, being overpowered, 
' said to these men, that if they took him by force 
' of arms, he had no more to say, or something 

* to that import, and then we rode off." 

Jones's account of the forcible rescue agrees 
sub.stantially with that of Buckley. Buckley's 
complaint against Branson was founded upon 
rumor. It scarcely amounted to suiTicient to 
justify a justice of the peace in issuing a war- 
rant. Wben the warrant was issued, it nUbrded 
no sort of e.^ccase for the arrest of Branson at the 
iime and place and in the manner it was made. 

Branson v.-as tho friend of Dow, who had been 
killed a few days before by Coleman, wlio had 
escaped ; the neighborhood was excited, party 
feeling ran high, Branson was quietl}' sleeping 
at home, when, at the dead hour of night, his 
dwelling was entered by Jones and his posse of 
ten men, of whom Buckley, vvho had sworn out 
tihe peace-warrant, was one ; tiie arrest was made, 
and Branson was hurried off in the darkness of 
night in the direction of a distant county seat. 
His neighbors, learning that a body of men h.-id 
ejitered Branson's house, had seized and were 
earrying him they knew not whither, nor for what 
purpose, very naturally gathorcvi together to learn 
wliat these things meant. While assembled, 
Jones and his party, having Branson in custodj. 
came passing by. The assembled neighbors call 
out in the darkness to know who is there, and, 
on being answered by Branson, they tell him to 
coroe with them, which ho quietly does ; and this 
is the rescue of the prisoner, to recapture whom, 
nnd for his o\vn protection when no man pursued, 
Sheriff Jones calls on Governor Shannon for three 
thousand men, and the Governor responds to his 
call by issuing orders to Generals Richardson 
and Strickler to fly to his protectiim with the 
roilitia, and calls on the President f(jr the addi- 
tional assistance of United Slates troops. 

Governor Shannon, in his letter of December 
11th to the President, eays that not more than 
three or four hundred of the militia of the Terri- 
tory assembled at the call of Generals Richardson 
and Strickler, but tliat thoir forcea wore soon 



swelled by men from llissouii to near two tlon- 
sand men, and that " the great danger to be ap- 
' prehended v/as from an unauthorized att.ick on 
' the town of Lawrence." What a change was 
wrought on Governor Shannon, when he saw 
how he had been imposed upon by false rumors, 
and learned the real truth ! His great fear now 
was. that the law and order men, whom he had 
unnecessarily assembled for the protection of 
Jones, would make an nnaidhorized attack upon 
the people of Lawrence ! Governor Shannon re- 
paired to that place, satisfied Inmself that no one 
against whom a writ had been issued was in. 
Lawrence, had no diflicultr in coming to a satis- 
factory arrangement with its inbabitatjts as to 
the execution of the laws, which a large majority 
of the people claimed they had always been will- 
ing to uphold, though they dcjued the validity of 
the acts of the bogus Legislature. A treaty was 
then concluded between Governor Shannon and 
the people of Lawrence. They were authorized 
by him to protect themselves against tho army 
assembled at Wakarusa under Generals Richard- 
ardson and Strickler, which subsequently dis- 
banded, and the disturbances in the Territory- 
were quieted, as the President tells us in his spe- 
cial message, "m a saiufactonj manner." The his- 
tory of tiiis whole disturbance, from its inception 
in the issuing out of a peace-warrant for an in- 
suflicient casse, till the linid disbanding of the 
invading army, when the Missourians returned 
grurablingly to their homes, has more the appear- 
ance of a conspiracy on the part of the officials 
and others in Kansas, to place the Free State 
settlers in a false position, that an excuse might 
be found lor attacking and exterminating them, 
than of an honest effort to enforce the laws. 

Branson seems to have been a quiet, inoffen- 
sive man, who needed not to h.ave been put under 
bonds to keep the peace, when he was fleeing as 
fo-r his life. Sheriif Jones needed no army f^or 
his protection, for no one seems to have been dis- 
posed to molest him : nor was an arrny necessary 
for the maintenance of law in Lawrence, for the 
people professed themselves willing to submit to 
the laws, save those of the assumed Legislature, 
which, by the treaty of peace, which socms to 
have been satisfactory to tho President, they were 
not required to acknowledge. It is manifest that 
Governor Shannon acted witliout sufficient cause 
when he assembled an army, chiefly of .Missou- 
rians, to enforce the laws against the citizens of 
Lawrence; and this is virtually acknowledged by 
the treaty of peace which he subsequently made. 
The disturbances of December last, tho Presi- 
dent tells us, "were speedily quieted, without the 
effusion of blood, and in a satisfactory manner."' 
What occr.rred aft.erwards, and l)efore the llth of 
February last, to justify the Presidi-nt in issuing 
a proclamation, placing the troops of tho United 
States at the service of Governor Shannon ? We 
have all the papers before us, and they contain 
no application from Governor Shannon for United 
States forces, since that of December last in refer- 
ence to a disturbance which was satisfactorily 
terminated long before the prochunation was 
issued. I take it, then, the proclamation niu.^t 
hiive been issued upon the Information communi- 






the borders of KaasR, f^n Ji °'^ff=""Z'ng upon 
ishin^ the towntand mm / ' P"?°'" ofdemol- 

upon that information tI.nAi,f 7' ^* '* ^''^^ 
founded, then it is crTe I ,, J^^^-l^mation T^-as 
men ^yho asked foi , S/ r^"'^' l^ ^"^^ ^^^'^^ State 
directed, not .tlin^ ° °"' ^'''- ^^ ^-^ n^^inlj 

Territ^'orv, wlTerthte ' r'" -''"°'' "''"'^^'^ ^^^« 
contem,;i;aed , neVt on '''^'"''^ ^^^^"^ ^^"^^^ 
SStrSSflri--n^^^^ 

material part oruStroUo^^^^'^^'''^-- ^'^^ 

' fini!!\""frd'intv''°'""°^ '«^ ^"^^ Territory 
' ings aurtl'e iotver ""'f "^J^^'^^^l Proceed- 
' marshals inadequate fo'^f'^ '" ^"^^'^^ ^^^-^'^s 
' surrectionarv comb nSi. -'^PP'^^^'^on of in- 

' sition upon von L f .' ^^°"''' "^^ke requi- 

' you are hereby diiSS to '''' ^^^^^'"'-^l "^"ty, 

' pose such narf o • V. '^'^'^''^^ ^'o^ that pur- 

' judgmen co^ is e'ntl' TT'^ '' ^^^^>' ^^ ^o" r 
' ordinary duty-' "^ ^' '^'''''^^'^ ^™m their 

Governor, to repel th. I . assistance of the 
ifissouri, 'should ft ho u^'"'"'^ ""'=^"°^ f™n: 
the ordeV is onlv i.« '-^"empted ? if not, and 

States forcS to fe u efto' '' '^"*^^^ ^"^ United 
men within the Terdfov T"'"' "^'^ ^'''^^ State 
«™ing to protect fhr.n:'i " organizing and 

can hardlv think U . , '''"*=^ ''"^ ""j"st I 
i'^tended." Bu the poinff, '"l"'' ^"^^"^ ''^«" so 
^"d never satisfactorily 1 '' T "'''"^'^ ^'^0^^^ 
-^^-nately.ori:S;V^riearr;;^i;J: 



16 



General GovenimenUvasT '° '^-f. '"^''^ '^^' ^Iie 
power to put do S i^rvr!^ r' ''■'"'"S: to use its 
than invasion hZVShont T '° "'' ^"^"•^'"^^^ 
'fied and commenld thetf- '''-°'' ^^^^ hm- 
ecutivc in reference to V'^ '''^'^^ «^the Ex- 

mjpart,Icansee no iu^tifiTf-'^'"'"^' '^^'' ^^r 
ments before us foiZAf,:'''' "' ^^« ^l«<^"- 
orders as have bcenrsued^ ^vr"'^'^'^ '-^"^ -^'"^^ 
army marched into KanVo , " ""^ mvadinj? 

elections by driv ngit znhSt'''f f^^^rolled its 
we ;vere told the PresldeSi h ,d ' ^™" .^'^^ P'^"^' 
kno^yledge of the fact a^L m ■'"' '"^''^ o^'eial 
erence to protect tteba lot W^" if > ^'^ ^"'«- 
he could neither see nor he " "f\. ^^''"" '^ ^^ ^hat 
m utter disregard of an ae 'of r "'' ^"^''^^'°"^' 
'^ so ready, without anjoifieial "T''' ^^^ ^'^ 
take notice of an oppositin to f) " '''™^^'''"' ^« 
a spurious Territorial LegilLl' '''f'f'^'l^^ 
Governor Reeder did no/ oPr • ,, ^'^"^ ^^'^t that 
the Missouri invasions IL^'""^^^ ^''^^ '^^ ^^ 
of the President o see th.f H f" ^* ^' ^'"^ "^"^7 
ted States be faitim. ; eteu e'd ?n f-^^ ^"^■ 
neglected his duty he shnni ' ^"'' '* ^^<^«'^er 

Jt cannot be th-t the TV^ ? ^""''^ '''^"^0^'°^ him. 
of the manner in whicltt'"/ ^^■"^ uninformed 
were carried; the facts l.t '^i'.""' ^" ^^''^"sas 
outtheIand,'andS;:ri::^Sf^^-ugh- 

1 would not censure tho p '^VJ'ody. 
use of the army of tho • fo'^'"'*°^™akin? 

civil war in Kansas Jj to put'fl .^^"''^ '■' ^^^^^^ 
acts of Congress • bu[ T L '"' '"^^'stance to 
United State's soldier l^J^^l ^« ^^^ the 
mission to the barbarous 3 , '"''"'^ ^"^- 
thatspuriousLeai.la'p'V, K ''""^^" ^^*« of 
the people of Kan a ' \ •'',^ '''^' ^'''''^'^ "Pou 
their will. As a roinc5 7°^'"'" '^'^'^ ^'S^^^^t 

Congress will not rs^ tt\r''''"° ^•^^^^' ^^ 
mise, it ought at IpW I , Missouri Compro- 

^oi-ial acts,^and gitta ° ^r"/ ^^^^P^^^^ent Te'r ri- 
tunity to elect ale! iatu;;'"r' "" "PP^'" 
Pnviloge which the" a ' ^^Ua; t,^""f ^'^'"'^ 
denied them, and which , , ''"' ^^'■. ^een 

not venture to Snv '''°" ^^'' ''i'^'^ does 



^"^^'^^'^d i!/ l^^e Sej^Mican Assccia, 



ion of Washingipn. 



\/'>i^ 



iSr "-IBRARY OF CONGRESS Jl] 



>>^; 






■^■jk' 



